Liverpool set to ban McDonald's Happy Meals in a bid to cut childhood obesity
 

The Mail on Sunday
London, UK
24 February, 2008


Liverpool set to ban McDonald's Happy Meals in a bid to cut childhood obesity

McDonald's Happy Meals are to be banned in Liverpool over claims they are contributing to the epidemic of childhood obesity.

The city council is planning to outlaw the meals on the grounds that they are damaging the heath of children - particularly as they offer free toys in order to encourage parents to buy junk food for their children.

The Liberal Democrat-controlled authority claims the credit for taking the lead in the campaign that led to the ban on smoking in public places.

Members of Liverpool City Council's Childhood Obesity Scrutiny Group want a bye-law that would forbid the sale of fast foot accompanied by toys.

Councillors say the promotional items are used to boost sales through the "Pester Power" phenomenon - children pestering parents for Happy Meal toys.

The scrutiny Group has ordered a report from town hall officials that would pave the way for the bye-law that would be the first of its kind in the UK.

Lib Dem councillor Paul Twigger said: "The Scrutiny Group is recommending that a bye-law be enforced to stop the circulation of free toys associated with junk food promotions.

"We consider it is high time that cash-hungry vultures like McDonald's are challenged over their marketing policies which are directly aimed at promoting unhealthy eating among children.

"Childhood obesity is a dire threat to the health in this country and it needs to be nipped in the bud urgently.

"Children are directly targeted with junk food and McDonald's use the Happy Meals to exploit Pester Power of children against which many parents give in.

"In most Happy Meals the toy is sold with a burgers containing four or five tablespoons of sugar, along with high-calorie fries and milkshakes.

"These fattening meals are being shamelessly promoted through free toys and it is clear that it is going to take legislation to combat the practice.

The most calorific Happy Meal - cheeseburger, small fries and chocolate milkshake - has 740 kcals, almost half of children's recommended daily allowance of 1600.

The healthiest meal on the menu comprises carrot sticks, nuggets, and mineral water, with 200 Kcals.

But Lib Dem Cllr Twigger said: "They know that most children won't want carrots and water but put them on the menu to stave off the criticism from health campaigners."

Toys that have been dished out include the board game Twister, Top Trump cards and football-related collectables.

"By offering these toys they are preying on the needs and desires of children in order to cash-in on the sale of junk food," said Cllr Twigger, 26.

Healthy eating campaigners are backing Liverpool council's move.

Food Commission spokesman Ian Tokelove said: "McDonald's are very skilled at getting children into their restaurants and know how to tug on the purse strings of parents.

"But a lot of the food on the Happy Meal menu can put children health at risk if eaten too regularly."

Sustain spokesman Richard Watts said: "We would support every effort to stop toys being sold with junk food. It will be see how Liverpool Council fares.

"We need to take radical action against the massive junk food-related health problems we have got with child obesity and heart disease."

In 2004, Liverpool sought a bye-law to ban smoking in public places and it is widely acknowledged that the move played a significant role in leading to the ban imposed last year.

Cllr Twigg believes the new move in Liverpool could begin locally and lead to a similar nationwide ban.

He said: "The Liverpool smoke-free team had a great success with their campaign and their ideas played a massive part in the nationwide blanket ban last year.

"There's no reason why we can't achieve a similar feat."

The plan to impose the bye-law banning Happy Meals will be put to a Select Committee of Liverpool Council at the end of the month.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_page_id=1770

It's a start. But I'd go further. Take out all the carbs from McD's menu and the net result is McD goes out of business in about 3 weeks.

I was thrilled to find out that the McDonald's in my neighbourhood CLOSED DOWN!! (doing the happy dance!)

It was right across the road from the highschool and it still couldn't stay afloat. They couldn't get any staff or customers.

I love this neighbourhood. The KFC had to close down too...

I wonder what all those Pima Indian kids did with the toys from their happy meals - oops I forgot, they got obese 75 years before there were happy meals

Woooo! Go your neighbourhood!!

Are they going to ban the candy bars, cokes, chips, cookies, carkes and the like from all of the grocery stores?

That is the heart of the matter. While I'm no fan of McDonald's, I think that if all of them worldwide were to close today, a year from now, there would be no dent in obesity rates. It goes deeper.

I agree. Please. You can't legislate everything.

You're exactly right. As long as nutritionists and doctors keep pushing people to eat grains at such massive rates, nothing is going to change as far as obesity is concerned. They are simply blinding themselves to the fact that all starches raise blood sugar and therefore insulin levels and therefore body fat storage. They KNOW this.

They know that no matter what minisucle amounts of fiber a whole grain or baked potato might have in it, and despite how much they've been taught in school about the need for whole grains, they know that such massive quantities of carbs are going to go to fat storage. They know the math, they know how much blood sugar we need at any given time, they know how much blood sugar the brain needs to function, and they know how much blood sugar a single potato or slice of whole grain bread, or bowl of oatmeal will convert to.

There's just some kind of blindness, some kind of disconnect in their insulin flooded brains, as if they think that our pancreas lives in some kind of la-la land and only provides insulin to convert the excess starch to fat if it happens to be a refined carb, but leaves the whole grain starches alone.

Yeah, I really do think McDonald's gets the blame because they are so pervasive. But you know, most people eat a lot more carbs and calories when they have pizza. And it doesn't help to get McDonald's unless you also get KFC, Taco Bell, Carl's Jr., Jack in the Box, Sonic -- we could be here all day with the list, not counting the mom&pop places making the same stuff.

And did I mention that most chinese places are mondo carbs, even the 'plain meats' usually have sugar sauces (my kid, if we do chinese buffet, wants to eat rice, mac&cheese, and corn, with "frozen dessert product" (not ice cream, whatever it is) after... what chinese has to do with any of that, who knows?). The list goes on. The food court in any mall is usually pretty killer. Hey, giant pretzels will kill you too.

The only reason Olive Garden isn't blamed for killing off our population is because it's less convenient (no drive-through) and too expensive for people to eat there 5+ times a week. Which is really too bad. 'cause if you gotta die of lousy eating, let it be something that tastes more like OG than McD!

The minute someone says "legislation" my stomach clenches. There is seriously something wrong with half our population that wants to legislate every damn thing, like maybe they didn't get enough proper parenting so they want the government to take over making broad-stroke "rules" to make everybody else behave the way they think everybody else should.

I'm offended that any privately owned business should have to do *anything* they don't choose to do -- that includes smoking (if people don't like it, they don't have to eat there! and I've never been a smoker, hate it), it's the ethics of free enterprise of it -- it's THEIR business. Golf clubs can ban women every day but Wednesday and that isn't allowed in 'public' stuff either but that's seen as 'a private' enterprise even though it is public. Bosh, everything not owned by the government is a private enterprise. If restaurants in new york want to use saturated or trans fats, it's their business -- their clients can choose with their wallets.

If the government is going to go making any kind of "legislation" at all about food, it ought to simply be that those providing the food, provide the details of the contents, so people can choose what they prefer.

To ban the evil fat of the moment from restaurants, while next door they're selling you vodka and next door to that they're selling you Doritos and 44oz Pepsi, is ludicrous.

PJ

Hmm, in a pinch I'll go to McDonalds and get two plain cheeseburgers, rip off the buns, and gobble down the patties. It's not the most satisfying meal, but it works when I need it. I have discovered, though, that there is better fast food. I always look for a joint that grills meat over a flame.

I am no fan of junk food either. I agree with Kyras dad though. Obesity goes deeper than just banning food.

But this also sort of seems off to me. People are allowed to decide what to eat and not eat. Parents should be allowed to feed their children happy meals if thats what they want.

I take big offense to people trying to regulate your food based on whats "healthy" or not. Not defending Mcdonalds, so to say, but we all know everyone has different ideas on what constitutes a healthy diet. I'd be screwed if an Atkins hater had the authority to ban bacon from the local groceries stores, for example, because "bacon is fattening."

I disagree with the above poster that said mcdonalds should be stripped of carbs and forced to close. I dont like the idea of government telling me what I can and cannot eat. Ciggarettes kill, alchohol also comes with it's own set of problems, but they are still allowed to be sold. Regulated, sure, but no one is banning those substances.

Right, they make too much money for government.

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but this reeks of fascism to me.

Legislation can never be the solution, as more laws simply increase the bureaucratic mess that got us there in the first place.

Remember, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

This could lead to things we don't like...it all depends on whose idea of healthy we are using...

For example, my own mom (bless her low-fat, high carb heart) feels that McDonald's can be healthy as long as you eat only the bun, lettuce, tomato and fries. You should definitely throw away the meat and cheese, and god forbid, bacon.

My view of healthy is almost the complete opposite. Throw away the bun and fries, and enjoy the meat, cheese, bacon and lettuce &tom.

So if we let someone else (government) decide, whose opinion wins?

Actually, I think legislation could make a difference, but not legislation of the kind people bannter about -- closing McDonald's that are in proximity to schools and the like. That's useless.

Legislation that I could see as useful:

1. Revamp farm subsidies that artificially reduce the price of grains. The entire subsidies mess is one of the primary root causes in my opinion.
2. Force changes in dietary recommendations that clearly are not working.
3. Require better labeling of nutritional content in stores and restaurants
4. Remove all nutritional based marketing. Give us clear, concise, accurate nurtitional values, but don't allow claims of low-carb, low-fat, lite, whole-grain, organic or whatever. It's all gone. Right now, you can put a 'healthy' sheen on Fruit Loops by claiming they are trans fat free, organic and whole grain. Ridiculous. No way to fix that system - just junk it.
5. Treat sugar, when marketed to children, the same as you treat tobacco. No cartoon characters. No television commercials. Just more or less disallow food marketing aimed at anyone younger than 18.
6. Pay for physical education in schools. Require and pay for nutritional information. (I know, right now they'd teach the wrong lessons, but point 2 would hopefully help with that. At the very least, both viewpoints could be required).

Now, I wouldn't expect most of these to ever happen. Big Food is very happy with the current situation.